November

19, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 73

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on with the routine business of the day, there

are some special visitors that we would like to welcome today. Firstly, I would

like to extend a warm welcome to former MHA, Mr. John Nolan, sitting in the

Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also in the Speaker's gallery is Maureen

Shaw, Chairperson of the Council of Governors of the Canadian Centre for

Occupational Health and Safety. We extend a warm welcome to Miss Shaw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the public galleries today, is a group of

Grade V1 students from the Roman Catholic School Board. They are engaged in an

Enrichment Program. These students, representing approximately ten schools, are

accompanied by Patricia Donnelley, teacher, and Mrs. Hickey, parent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, before I give my statement, I

would like to make a brief comment. I was hoping that one of our colleagues, the

hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, would be here today to hear this

announcement because I know he is anxiously awaiting word on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Recreation Capital Grants Program was

revised in September of 1991 and among other things the new program stipulated

that municipalities and/or incorporated recreation associations could apply for

funding to assist school boards with the cost of building schools where an

agreement for community use of the building during non-school hours was in

place.

This revision was implemented to encourage the co-operation

of regional groups to develop regional facilities, to optimize financial

resources, to avoid duplication of costly facilities, and to provide residents

with a greater variety of better quality, better utilized services.

Today, it is my pleasure to announce that the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been authorized by Government to commit a

total of $240,000 to increase the size of the gymnasiums in schools at Makkovik

and Mount Carmel to facilitate community use of the buildings during non-school

hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: This announcement today constitutes the

first Joint-use Agreements under the revised Recreation Capital Grants Program.

The $240,000 will be committed in the 1992-93 budget of the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs including $100,000 for the Mount

Carmel school and $140,000 for Makkovik.

These amounts represent 75 per cent of the total cost of each

of these projects and the remaining 25 per cent will be raised by the

communities, themselves, through various efforts.

In the case of Mount Carmel, the community representatives

are proposing an increase from 4,800 square feet to 6,000 square feet and this

change would allow for regulation play to take place with room for spectators.

In the case of the Makkovik project, the community group is

proposing an increase from 2,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet.

Both school boards have indicated a willingness to increase

the size of the gymnasia on the condition that 75 per cent of the additional

costs are guaranteed by the Province and both are willing to sign Joint-Use

These initiatives, once completed, will allow for much

greater community use of schools and, as indicated, they are the first examples

of the department's new commitment to funding community/school shared-use

recreation facilities.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, both municipalities and school

boards have been hard pressed to find enough resources to respond to recreation

needs separately. This new joint approach to constructing and operating sport

and recreation facilities offers the opportunity to strengthen existing

programs; to maximize existing services and resources and to achieve those

desirable objectives at reduced costs.

The Minister of Education, the hon. Phil Warren and I have

had considerable dialogue with respect to the development of this new government

initiative which is being announced today. I would like to acknowledge my

colleague's involvement and also the significant contribution of staff officials

within the Department of Education. The new Joint-Use Agreement guidelines will

also be included in a School Planning Manual which is presently under

development by the Department of Education.

Since 1972, Mr. Speaker, the Recreation Capital Grants

Program has been provided to municipalities and sports groups throughout the

Province and the inclusion of the Joint-Use Agreements can only serve to enhance

this program - the intent of which is to provide needed recreation and leisure

facilities to enhance the lifestyle of all residents of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement prior to

coming into the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would, from the outset, have to say without

hesitation that this is a very positive statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: It goes to show what the minister and his

officials, with the Minister of Education, can do when they get their heads

together and talk about what will be positive for this Province. I know that the

minister is capable of it. If they would leave him alone with respect to the

municipalities in the Province, he would do the same I must say, but he does not

have the final say.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is very positive; I am cognizant of

what the minister is talking about re his joint effort with the Minister of

Education. Some municipalities in this Province have no other way of getting

recreation facilities. In some cases, the municipalities are not big enough to

put in their percentage. In this case, there is a school board that is quite

capable of doing it, with, probably, other fund-raising activities and so on.

And, the main thing here, too, is that, it is someplace for the students to go.

In some of those municipalities they do not have the recreation facilities that

they have in the urban centres of this Province, and I think this should be

noted.

I say, Mr. Speaker, hats off to the school committees. I

understand they did quite a bit of lobbying for those two particular facilities,

and I would have to give them full marks as well, for their success in lobbying

the department and the Government to come out with such a positive statement.

Also, with respect to the statement, Mr. Speaker, it is one

thing to put those programs in place; it is another to ensure the facilities are

going to be used as was intended. Use for the general public, as per your second

last statement on the second page, is very important. School boards have to be

made aware of that, and have to make sure that those facilities are used for the

purpose for which they were intended.

The second last paragraph in your statement is very

important. It states that you are going to put this into the School Planning

Manual, so it will be there for everybody's advantage and can't be taken out

tomorrow or the next day. Once again, I would like to thank the minister for the

statement and say it is something very positive, something we need in this

Province, today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister is going into a meeting

this week with his Atlantic counterparts and, I understand, with the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Crosbie, to talk about the 1992 Groundfish

Management Plan. The last year, we all know that the Total Allowable Catch was

set for three years and the 1992 TAC was set at 185,000 metric tons, 5,000

metric tons less than the 1991 Total Allowable Catch.

I am wondering if the minister can inform the House, whether

or not he has consulted with the various partners in the fishing industry, the

union and the fish processors and so on, to determine the implications that a

lower TAC will have on the fishing industry in our Province in 1992. Has he

consulted with these partners, and really, what have they told the Minister the

effect of a further decrease in the total allowable catch will have on the

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of

discussions over the past twelve months, I guess, with the people in the

fishery, both the processing and harvesting sectors. Of course, it is no secret

that if the total allowable catch is reduced still further then it will have

some impact on those sectors, but the degree to which it will impact on them is

not quite clear yet because I am not sure if anybody is anticipating a further

reduction in the allowable catch. As we all know, last year there was a

multi-year quota set: in 1991, 190,000 metric tonnes; 1992, 185,000 metric

tonnes; 1993, 180,000 metric tonnes. It was pretty well agreed at that time that

barring unforeseen circumstances that those quotas would be obtained.

Mr. Speaker, like I said yesterday, on Thursday we will be

briefed by scientists and highly placed officials with the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans. They have been monitoring the situation now, and keeping

an eye on the scientific data that is coming in. If it is found that maybe the

stocks cannot stand a TAC of 185,000 tonnes in 1992, then it might well be that

we will have to give some serious thought to reducing that TAC still further. Of

course if that happens then there will be some impact on the various sectors. To

what extent, I do not know because I do not expect the TAC will be dropped too

drastically, but any minor drop, I am sure, will not have too big an impact on

them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is fair to say, and I think the Minister would

agree, I think it is pretty certain that the total allowable catch for 1992 will

certainly not be any more than 185,000 metric tonnes, and I suppose there are

people out and about who expect it to be less.

I want to ask the Minister if he has received any indication

from Fishery Products International: with the total allowable catch staying at

185,000 metric tonnes or being a bit less, has the Minister received any

indication that there will be increased downtime at any of the plants in their

system with the total allowable catch at 185,000 tonnes or lower? Has he

received any indication from the company that plants in the FPI system may

experience additional downtime this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Replying to the first part of the hon.

gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, I think he is right. It is pretty safe to say

that the TAC in 1991-1992 certainly will not exceed 185,000 tonnes. There is not

much chance of that happening. Of course, there might be a chance it will reduce

below what was set last year. Getting back to the second part of his question,

no, we have not really discussed that with FPI, because I have been led to

believe by the principals of that company that there is a certain amount of

flexibility built into their system, where if there is a moderate decrease in

the total allowable catch, that does not necessarily mean that they are going to

have to close a plant. I repeat, a moderate decrease.

They can accommodate that and re-adjust their schedules and

so on. So if there is a moderate decrease in the TAC I do not anticipate that

the big companies - FPI and Natsea - will have to look toward closing some of

their plants. Now if it is a major decrease, well then who knows what will

happen? But I do not think this kind of a decrease that might very well come

will have that affect on the two big companies.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary to the Minister, then. I think I sort of read between the lines of

what the Minister is saying, but my final supplementary simply is this: can the

Minister confirm for the House today that Fishery Products International will

not be looking seriously at closing one or more of their processing plants in

1992?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for obvious reasons,

confirm or deny any such statement because that is a decision that is made in

the boardroom of the company. Now I have no doubt that as a courtesy before any

such decision is made the CEO of that company, Mr. Young, will certainly discuss

the matter with the Province. I would expect that as a courtesy. In fact I know

he will do that. But we have not been so advised and I can only assume from that

that no such plan has been even discussed to this date.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Health. Could the Minister of Health give any information to the

House as to whether or not hospitals in the Province have been able to operate

within their 1990-1991 budgets? In particular, could the Minister give us any

information as to whether hospitals have been able to operate within their

budget for nursing services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, all

the hospital boards, except three, have been able to operate within their budget

over the past years. The three which were not able to operate within budget had

some extenuating circumstances. In some cases they were asked to take on extra

responsibilities and that sort of thing. So, there has been no significant

problem with the operation.

With regard to the nursing departments, it is difficult to

break that down because hospitals are given a budget and each hospital decides

itself how much of that will go into nursing and how much will go into the

backup services and other areas. I am not aware of any special problem as far as

nursing goes in any of the hospitals, Mr. Speaker.

I will say, however, that we had anticipated there would be

350 nurses laid off, and we arrived at that figure after we analyzed the

information which hospital boards gave us. But when the crunch came, there were

an awful lot less than that laid off, Mr. Speaker. There were probably no more

than fifty or sixty nurses who lost their jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister has indicated that three hospitals have had cost

overruns. Would the Minister table the information in the House on any and all

of these overruns that have occurred, the amount of the overruns, what hospitals

have had these overruns and what the projected cost of overruns will be by the

end of the fiscal year for these three hospitals he is talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to table

that over the next day or so. I should tell the hon. Member, though, that it was

quite normal in the past, well, since Confederation, I suppose, and maybe before

that, for some hospital boards to overrun their budget. I am pleased with the

performance of the hospital boards this year. If members were to look at the

budgets for the past number of years, you will see that there was always an

overrun somewhere in the system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am not absolutely sure of this information as it is

information I received only yesterday, but can the Minister confirm that the

Janeway Hospital was having a serious deficit problem, or any deficit problem?

The Minister will obviously clear that up. The information, as I said I received

yesterday, is that the Janeway is in deficit to the tune of approximately $1

million. Is that true? Is that accurate information? If it is accurate can the

Minister tell us what the deficit will be by year's end at the Janeway, and what

extraordinary measures the Minister is taking right now to bring these

expenditures in line with the reality of a very strapped health care budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Heath.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the area of hospital deficits is

not a black and white area to deal with. For example, the Grenfell Regional

Health Care Services came in to meet with the Department of Health some months

ago and they were at that time predicting a deficit in excess of $1 million.

After discussions with the Department of Health they are now telling us they are

going to reach the end of this year with a balanced budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Janeway?

MR. DECKER: No, the Grenfell Regional Health Services,

just as an example. Now, earlier in the year the Janeway was predicting a

deficit of somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000 or $300,000 but they assured us

they have sufficient board funds, or they will make sufficient adjustments to

their programme so they can handle that magnitude of a deficit. Mr. Speaker, we

can take a snapshot of any given day but we cannot say there was a deficit until

the year end arrives. However, I will table the information that the hon. Member

is asking for.

I should say also, Mr. Speaker, that I am delighted to see

the hon. Member back on his feet after having a little bit of exposure to the

health care system. I can only hope that they treated him well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.

Minister of Social Services. The Minister recently had a meeting with

representatives of the Foster Parents Association of Happy Valley-Goose Bay

regarding a foster child who is to be sent back to his parental home where

terrible abuse has been alleged. I understand he is suppose to go back by

December 5. Now, that the Minister has had his meeting I would like to ask him

if he is satisfied that the matter is being properly dealt with by the

Department of Social Services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and more importantly

will the two year old child in question be going back to the environment where

the abuse is alleged to have happened?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I did have a meeting with an

individual who is a resident of the particular area of which the Member speaks.

The lady was not representing the Foster Parents Association but she was a

concerned citizen who had some limited contact with the case in point. The case

that the hon. Member is speaking of is one which I would rather not get into the

specifics of because they are confidential to the family and to the case

workers. However, I will assure him that I have been closely monitoring this

specific case since last Summer and only yesterday the Deputy Minister and

Director of Child Welfare did discuss the case with professional workers in the

Goose Bay area. Certain conclusions were arrived at which apparently I am going

to be briefed on tomorrow when they return. The final decision on whether the

child is returned to its natural parents for a temporary period of time or not

has yet to be made. I think the final decision will probably be made by the

courts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port

au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, first I should say that when I

met with the lady in question she was accompanied by an executive member of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Parents' Association, so she was not exactly on

her own.

Is the Minister aware that the child was removed from his

natural parents - there must have been a reason why he was removed - when he was

six weeks of age, and that the child has permanent loss of sight and permanent

brain damage because of a severe blow on the head? What I want to ask the

Minister is will he have this case re-opened? Can we look into this before he is

sent back to the situation which he was in before? Will he deal with the

concerns of the Foster Parents' Association and of the people in Goose Bay, and

will he deal with the fact that this child is being sent back at two years of

age?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: The hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, has some of his

facts mixed up but basically he is correct in what he is saying. The child was

taken from its natural parents some three years ago and has been in two foster

homes over that period. As I said, it is being closely monitored by

professionals. It is being closely monitored by the executive of the Department.

The case is not closed, it is wide open, and the final decision is not made. The

child, as a matter of fact, was with its natural parents for a period of time

some months ago and that went well. As I indicated to the Member in private

conversation, I have some hesitancy myself with returning the child to its

natural parents.

However, the natural parents do have certain legal rights and

the Child Welfare Act dictates those rights, and the final decision will be made

by the courts. But it will be closely monitored, and if the child if returned to

its natural parents for a short period of time that will be very closely

monitored. However, utmost and lastly with the Department, the child's safety

will be predominant in the final decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port

au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, and the child has some rights

to. The Minister has not told us whether that child is going back on December 5

or not. That is one thing he has not told us. Now I would like to ask the

Minister: would he tell the House why the child - and this is another related

situation - was taken away from its original foster parents, who cared for it

deeply, and placed in another home? Why is it that a two year old child who has

a brain shunt and needs specialized care was taken from the original foster

parents, who cared for him, who are trying to get him back through the law

courts, and placed into a single parent situation? Could the Minister tell us

why that is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not tell the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Premier. It has to do with the recent awarding of a contract

to Tricity and more particularly -

AN HON. MEMBER: Trans City.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Trans City, is it? More particularly, to

a construction company of Marco, Mr. Speaker, who we all know has ties to the

Liberal Party in this Province, or certainly the principal of it does. I just

have a question that the Premier could probably say yes or no to, I guess, right

off the bat. The question is: did Tom Hickman or any of his companies contribute

to the salary supplement of $50,000 that the Premier received when he was the

leader of the opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House

yesterday and I told the House that I am prepared to answer any questions that

affect the public interest, that bear on it in any way. But I do not want to

stand in this House and engage in the kind of personal acrimony and unfounded

personal attacks that you see like this, coming from the opposite side. Mr.

Speaker, I have greater concern about my reputation for personal integrity than

to resort to reciprocal intellectual cowardice, which I see in this kind of

thing. It is just too silly to respond to.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the question was all that

complicated, it was fairly simple: Who paid his $50,000 supplement? The Premier

cannot answer that. He did answer it in a roundabout way at one time, Mr.

Speaker. Maybe he doesn't know. He told us one time that he doesn't know who

paid his salary, that the Liberal Party collected all this money and paid his

salary.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier will get some information from

the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador - and maybe he will eventually

come clean with the people - get the information from the Liberal Party with

regard to who contributed to this $50,000 supplement he had. This is very

important in light of the way that the last contract, the contract for three

hospitals, was awarded in this Province? Mr. Speaker, the people of this

Province would like to know if Tom Hickman contributed to his salary and, if he

did, doesn't the Premier think that would be a conflict of interest now, when he

awarded contracts to this same person who paid his salary while he was Leader of

the Opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have told this House and I

have told the people of the Province that the salary paid me as Leader of the

Liberal Party while the former Government, of which that Member was a part,

deliberately prevented a by-election from taking place for six months in order

to prevent the Liberal Party from being able to function effectively, in order

to achieve that, while they did that, those same people that the hon. Member is

now naming were probably paying the salary then being paid to the Premier of the

Province by the Conservative Party, some $6,000 or $7,000 a year, I suspect paid

by the same people that he is talking about now.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is what he wants to deal with, then

deal with it fully and we will deal with it fully.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

PREMIER WELLS: I have answered the question totally and

completely and honestly. It was paid by the Liberal Party out of its general

fund while the Government, of which that hon. Member was an active part, tried

to prevent the democratic process from functioning. But, you can see how

miserably they failed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member from Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we might remember that in

the last general election, when the Premier ran, when everybody knew he got his

$50,000 supplement, he was defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: He did not win his seat yet, Mr. Speaker,

in a general election.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is unreasonable for an

Opposition or for the people of this Province to want to know who paid the

supplementary salary. Mr. Speaker, when we see that this Government is going to

throw away $6.3 million on a contract for three hospitals and give a contract to

other than the lowest bidder, then there is an onus on the Opposition to ask the

question: Did the person who is getting this contract pay the supplementary

salary two or three years ago? That is a simple question, Mr. Speaker. If the

Premier cannot answer it, maybe he would table in this House some information

from the Liberal Party of Newfoundland as to whether or not this person paid

part of his salary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that those who

contributed to the general funds of the Liberal Party can be said to have

contributed a portion of it. Nobody contributed specifically that I know of, so

I cannot say. It may well be that the same individuals contributed to the Tory

Party and did the same thing, and paid the supplement that the Premier of the

Province, while Mr. Peckford was Premier of the Province, received on a regular

basis, while he was also receiving a salary as Premier. The Member sat opposite

and allowed all of this to take place with no criticism, and now you see this

great surge 'of conscience,' if that is what you can call it, or do you call it

hypocrisy.

MR. TOBIN: Tell the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $100,000.

MR. TOBIN: Peckford never had $50,000 a year in his life.

Tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the House would know, if they

looked at the piece of legislation that was introduced by me yesterday, what we

are going to do. We put our money where our mouth is. The hon. members opposite

sat and hypocritically participated in this kind of process for all those years.

It took a Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, with integrity and

concern for the people of this Province to bring in electoral reform legislation

that will require disclosure by everybody who contributes more than a hundred

dollars, and here is the piece of legislation, to any political party. Now maybe

the members opposite do not like that, but this is the Liberal Party's

commitment, and we are prepared to let our actions speak far louder than our

words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In response to a

question in the House of Assembly on Thursday, October 30, the Premier said the

municipal taxes in this Province were the lowest in Canada, approximately 42 per

cent of the national average, and that it needs some adjustment so that

municipalities take a fairer share of the burden. Would the Premier be able to

tell the House the amount he considers municipalities would have to increase

their taxes in order to bear a so called fairer share of the tax burden?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that what

I said was that property tax is 42 per cent of the national average because that

is the way the statistics are kept nationally. I suspect that the overall

municipal tax in the Province probably may be a bit higher than 42 per cent, it

may be 46 or 47, or it may even be 50 per cent, but it is relatively low by

comparison with the rest of the nation. But the property tax in this Province is

only 42 per cent of the national average property tax. Now, of course, that also

includes school tax collected on property as well.

So exactly what the share is that is borne directly by the

municipalities, I do not know. I have been concerned for some time, Mr. Speaker,

about the fundamental unfairness in our taking general taxation revenue from

citizens throughout the Province and giving it to people in municipalities only,

where they alone get the benefit of it. I have some concern about the fairness

inherent in that, and we have to take a look at that. I have an even greater

concern about the fundamental unfairness in the school tax system, and we are in

the process of trying to do something about that. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, when and

if we abolish the school tax, it may well be that the municipalities would be

able to increase the revenue that they generate and so reduce the burden on the

Provincial treasury directly and allow us to have more funds available for

schools and other general needs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Premier be able to inform the House if the

Government has any plan to get municipalities to raise those taxes so that they

will be able to bear a so called 'fair share' of the tax burden?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any plan.

The municipalities decide for themselves the level of taxation they want. The

only thing the Government can do is decide how much money it transfers to the

municipalities. Now that is what would have a bearing on what they decide, so we

do not have any plan to persuade them to increase the taxes. But if, for

example, we abolish the school tax, if we do that we could contemplate

diminishing the level of transfers to the municipalities on a gradual basis,

perhaps, so that they could increase their taxation to take up the slack. The

money would be spent directly in the community where it was collected. That

would seem to me to be a fairer and more sensible way of running the taxation

system in the Province, and then the people who are getting the benefit of the

services within the municipality would, in fact, be paying for it to the level

that they were prepared to put it in place, and prepared to pay for it. Another

municipality may want to have it to a much lesser level and they would not have

taxes, so we do not want to tell them that you have to have a certain minimum

level of taxes. We are going to decide how we spend the Province's money

generally, and it may have some bearing on the municipalities sometime in the

future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley on a

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: I wonder if the Premier would be able to

tell the House if municipal amalgamation was intended to down load to the urban

centres the cost of providing municipal services to surrounding rural areas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no such

intention. Amalgamation was proposed for the various purposes in different areas

of the Province that we have already indicated. It has nothing whatsoever to do

with down loading as the hon. Member suggests.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Premier would be aware then of how much it

would cost the citizens of St. John's, in other words the taxpayers of St.

John's, to absorb and provide the municipal services now that are being

recommended under the amalgamation of the northeast Avalon? To put it plainly,

is the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs aware of what it would

cost the citizens of St. John's themselves, increasing the mil rate, to provide

those services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my recollection, Mr.

Speaker, it will reduce their overall cost - for a very simple reason. I heard

an interview with-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I heard an interview with the Mayor this

morning on CBC Radio, and I heard Mayor Duff saying: we want Provincial funds to

provide for a transition. Why? They have all the same tax revenues. They do not

change the taxes at all. If they do not increase at all, they have all the same

tax revenue, they can continue to provide the same services and so on as was

provided before. Now if they are going to provide increased services-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to again remind hon. members about shouting across the

floor. The Premier is answering a question. There are other questions coming.

There is still time left in Question Period for the other questions to be asked.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as they increase the services

in areas that may have a lesser service than is now provided by the City of St.

John's, they no doubt will also increase the tax level. They may well phase that

in over a period of time, and I would think that would be reasonable; but I have

heard nothing to indicate there is any substantial basis for a transfer of funds

from the Province - none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: My question is to the Acting Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. Can the Minister tell this hon. House what

is the status of the Outer Ring Road?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the proposed Outer Ring Road is

part of a package that was agreed to some time ago by a previous government, the

Roads for Rails Agreement, I think it was called. The Outer Ring Road is still

on that particular schedule, to be started at some point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. R. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the

mistaken impression that the Premier left when he answered a question that I

asked earlier today, when he said that his intention was to bring in this Bill

for a full disclosure of what monies that MHA's in this House get, and have

received during elections. This was what he planned to do. Mr. Speaker, I just

want to inform the House and the people of this Province, so that the impression

will not be left mistakenly; what this Member did, when nobody had to disclose

or nobody had to say what monies they took in and spent, this Member made full

disclosure during the last election of what expenses I had during the last

election, and I challenge the Premier to do the same thing, but I did not have

to do (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: By law you have to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Check it out.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, there is no resemblance to a point of order. It is simply - the hon.

gentleman is trying to cover up his own embarrassment for serving so long in

Cabinet, having made the promise so many times to bring about electoral reform

and not doing so, he is simply embarrassed by the fact (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. Member took advantage of

a point in time to make a clarification.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the

House the Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service

Commission for 1989-1990.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the

Opposition asked me a question and I told him I knew nothing about the letter to

which he was referring, and he said that (

a) one of the bidders, in connection

with the health care facilities in St. Lawrence, Burgeo and Port Saunders, had

submitted a further bid or an amendment to the bid within the time limit that

would allow it and that was totally ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I have sought the answers to this; I am tabling

the letter that was received and the reply, and I would point out that the

proposal was received thirty days after the bid was opened, I am told. The day

the bids were opened was August 30th and this additional letter was written on

September 30th, a month later, and I am also advised that the whole proposal was

unacceptable because of the nature of it. From a functional planning point of

view, it was inadequate to meet the needs, so I am happy to table that.

Mr. Speaker, I should also advise that another such letter

was received from a second bidder, and I am tabling that letter as well. That

letter was submitted on October 18. This is the original letter so I should have

a photocopy made and I will table the photocopy of it. I will also table a copy

of the reply. Mr. Speaker, the additional cost - I am told it was well after the

date anyway, but the additional cost would have made it over in any event. Mr.

Speaker, this is photocopied so that can be tabled. Would you make photocopies

of that and give me back the originals?

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4, Bill No. 22. This is the resuming

of the adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I spent about twenty minutes on

this yesterday so I will just say a few more words. I do not think I have that

much time but I will just say a few more words to sum up some of the things I

feel about this particular Bill.

First of all, historically this Province, and the people and

residents of this Province, have had the right of unrestrained access to our

ponds and rivers and that right has been there since time immemorial. Indeed,

Mr. Speaker, the act which this Act replaces has been there for the past fifty

years, which takes it back before Confederation. As well we have a Minister, who

probably as a Member of this House of Assembly, and before he came into this

House of Assembly, had taken on an environmental project and was successful in

stopping the Lloyds River diversion. He has a tremendous record as a person who

cares about the environment and who cares about Newfoundlanders. Mr. Speaker, I

find it very strange that this Minister should come into this House of Assembly

with a bill that keeps Newfoundlanders and Labradorians away from their ponds

and rivers. Mr. Speaker, the question has not been answered at any time, and I

expect that pretty soon the Minister will rise to give his concluding remarks.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, I want him to tell us why we cannot do it in another

way. There are provisions for grants of land where this could be done in other

ways. This could be done with leases, permits to occupy, and the Minister would

allay the fears of an awful lot of outdoorsmen in this Province if he were to

withdraw

Section 7 (2). If he would just leave it alone that would be fine with

us and fine with the people who enjoy the Newfoundland outdoors. Sections such

Section 7 (2) can lead to other things. I believe it was the Member for

Humber Valley who alluded, when he spoke to the House two or three days ago, to

the fact that in the early 60s there was a scheme to sell parts of the Gander

River and, I believe, Portland Creek. Mr. Speaker, it is not so farfetched in

this particular time, with our economy as it is, to perhaps do something of that

nature. I think that would be wrong and we should keep the door closed. That

Section should not be there. There is no reason for it being there at all. When

the Legislation Review Committee travelled this Province, numbers turned out to

see the Legislation Review Committee, which they did not expect, on this

particular piece of legislation. As well backbenchers on the Government side of

the House were also the prime movers. I believe the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island spoke out against this particular provision and, Mr. Speaker, when the

vote came around they had changed their minds. Perhaps the minister, when he

speaks, can tell me why - because that is the question that I think every member

on this side of the House has asked - why is

section 7(2) in this particular

legislation? Why is it there? Why, if you could do otherwise, would you ever

grant land along a river bank? I mean, there can be only two reasons why you

would keep that

section in there, one, that for stubbornness and pride, you

don't want to admit the Opposition is right, or a second, that there is

something behind it. Mr. Speaker, I would not want to think that, but I hope

there is nobody in this Province who would like to create here a Miramichi

River, or to have happen here in this Province, the types of things that happen

with some of the rivers in other provinces of Canada.

As I said yesterday, I have fished the Miramichi River.

Perhaps other members of this House have, as well. But I did fish there and it

was not a very pleasant experience. You can't walk along the paths. They are

chained off, with "Keep Out" and "Stop" signs, with little markers along the

river saying who owns what. Now I am not saying that this bill is going to do

that. Far be it from me to hold that bogeyman up. But once we start granting

land - why put 7(2) in there, giving people a way to get grants of land? A grant

is forever. A permit to occupy, a lease for thirty years, is a different thing.

Mr. Speaker, a grant is forever, and no way, should we ever grant the shorelines

of our rivers and ponds privately to individuals.

I note that the Chairman, I believe, of the Prospectors

Association has come out against this particular piece of legislation. He said,

if I remember his words correctly, that it was a hindrance and restriction to

access. All I can say is that I think every member on the other side should

question whether we really need to grant land for any of the purposes that are

in the particular act. Why do we have to grant land, even if it is an

aquacultural project, even if it is not an industrial undertaking, even if it is

for water and sewer works or public roads? Why does it have to be a grant? - why

not a permit to occupy, why not a lease for a set period, renewable? Why are we

starting a precedent in this Province which was never here before, which has not

been here since Confederation? Why are we giving grants of land to individuals

in this Province?

Every Newfoundlander has a right to rivers and ponds. We have

had it for centuries. I say that the minister should change his mind. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question on the

amendment?

All those in favour of the amendment, which is the six-month

hoist, please say, 'aye'. Those against, 'nay'.

I declare the amendment defeated.

Back to the main motion.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

already spoken to the amendment and I want to say a few words now about Bill 22.

I want to state again what I said previously, that as far as this bill is

concerned, I have no problem with it. "The Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law

Respecting Crown Lands", I believe, was outdated and needed to be made relevant

to the 'nineties. I believe that most of this bill is good for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

But, again, I go back to

section 7(2).

Section 7(2) in this

new Bill 22 is the same, with a couple of changes, as were Bills 53 and 25.

There was such a public outcry at that time about those bills, that the Premier,

himself - although he said in the House that he did not speak to the bill; but

he certainly did speak to one of the previous bills, as I can remember, either

Bill 25 or Bill 53. But, Mr. Speaker, no matter what the amendments are, it has

not changed.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder, too, about the Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island. During the committee hearings that I attended, the member was

adamant. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

who really brought 7(2) to the forefront, and made people realize that there was

something wrong with 7(2). And, Mr. Speaker, 7(2) has not changed, but I don't

see the members on the other side, now, showing any great emotion with respect

to Bill 22. All we did was change numbers, Mr. Speaker, 53, 25, and 22. The

content of the bill is the same. The Premier said he would fix it up, and

perhaps, in his own heart and soul, he thinks he has fixed it up. But, from my

perspective, Mr. Speaker, it is just the same as it was when it was initially

introduced to the House, and I say it is wrong.

I have heard all kinds of excuses, such as, you know, 'The

grant will never interfere with access around ponds, waters, rivers, whatever,'

but I say to the minister that a grant is a grant forever. I have a grant. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, I have three or four grants, grants from my ancestors, from

my grandfather and from my father, and I have one of my own. On two of the

grants there is a waterway, and provision is made there for the thirty-three

foot reservation. I have no problem with that. Never did have a problem. My

grandfather didn't have a problem with it, and I don't see why anyone now would

want to change. Those people, all their lives, did not seek changes. And I just

wonder, why the changes now? I say to hon. members, you know, few of us - there

are a few exceptions - can count ourselves among the elite. We are ordinary

people who do the things that ordinary people can afford, such as fishing,

ski-dooing, or using a four-wheel drive vehicle, or whatever. Mr. Speaker, I

have said before and I will say again, that this legislation leaves a loophole,

and, as sure as there is a loophole, you will find some people out there who

will act upon it.

Mr. Speaker, if there were something wrong with the previous

legislation - the Premier shakes his head. You know, this is the Premier's baby,

Bill 22. He has tried his best to tell us, 'Okay, if there was something wrong

with 7(2) in the first instance then I will fix it.' I think that was on Bill

25. When Bill 53 came in he had it changed, but it was not fixed, Mr. Speaker,

so it died on the Order Paper, and now we bring in Bill 22. Mr. Speaker, there

is no change. The amendment is to the original 7(2).

Section 72 is still there.

You can amend what you like, Mr. Speaker.

You know, I have even heard from the minister that there is

nothing wrong with this bill. The minister has told me privately - I don't think

there was any secrecy to it - the purpose of this bill was that a person would

never get a grant again. I don't think that is right either. If it is in the

statutes of the land that a grant is permissible, if the opportunity arises and

the need is there and there are no exceptions to the rule, why shouldn't the

person get the grant? I mean, it has not been taken out of the vocabulary of

Newfoundland and Labrador, it has not been taken out of the dictionary. There is

still place for a grant, so why not issue the grant if it is legal, if the

necessity is there? The minister says the old legislation was flawed, and we are

bringing in this new legislation to fix something. Mr. Speaker, I was at every

one of those committee hearings - on the Avalon Peninsula, anyway. And the

question has been asked, over and over, why fix something if it is not broken?

Mr. Speaker, there was nothing wrong with the old legislation.

I am surprised at some of the younger men on the other side,

with young families, and I suppose the older ones too, but the younger men,

particularly, who have families growing up, young children who will want to have

access to lakes, rivers and ponds, or shorelines. The shoreline, Mr. Speaker, is

a little different, because in Newfoundland's infancy, people went to the

shoreline and built houses, in some instances, not thirty-three feet back from

the shoreline, and there is nothing we can do about that. In my own situation,

Mr. Speaker, in my own constituency, I have seen, over the years, instances

where people did fence to the river - for expediency. Say there were a pond on

the side of a great parcel of land that a person owned; rather than fence that

land up by the side of the pond, back the thirty-three feet, he put a stake

right out in the pond, because the cattle would roam, naturally, and come out of

their pound (inaudible); so, he put the fence out in the pond, but, Mr. Speaker,

I would like to see someone try to take that fence away now. There was access to

that pond for years, but there is no access to that pond now.

Mr. Speaker, the day that this Government or any other

government, through Cabinet, or whatever, gives a grant to an individual to

build a boat house on a pond - and the reasoning I have heard from several of

the ministers opposite is that it will not make any difference. There will still

be a reservation to the back of that boat house. Mr. Speaker, let us have a look

at it, now. Let us see what we are talking about. If I could afford it and were

to look for a grant to build a boat house on a particular body of water, say, I

had two acres of land - and again, I could afford it - and I built a thirty foot

boat house, which is nothing great, nothing spectacular, there are boat houses a

lot longer than that. Over and over again, I have said that I have a little one,

four feet high, and about fourteen feet long, for my aluminium boat. That is

where my boat house is, and that is the size of it, because it was all I could

afford. But the person who can afford it has a two-acre lot, say 400 feet, on a

pond, he gets a grant on the land, and the grant goes to the water's edge,

because you will have influential people looking for privacy, and he says, okay,

the reservation is around the other side of the boat house. The boat house is

thirty feet long, and they are going to leave a reservation on the back of the

boat house. Now, Mr. Speaker, that will be fine while he is building the boat

house, but the next year the fence comes down to the boat house. Now who is

going to have the fence removed? The minister hits himself in the chest and says

he will. Well, maybe that minister will not be here then. Perhaps this Premier

will not be here then. It is hypothetical. Perhaps they will not be here. The

Minister of Finance certainly will not be here. There is no doubt at all about

that.

Mr. Speaker, say you are an outdoorsman in Newfoundland and

Labrador. You go up a pond and there is a thirty foot boat house, especially in

winter, if you have a ski-doo; you go up the side of a pond and you have to cut

in thirty feet to get around the back side of the boat house. Now, let's face

it. Most of the time, right on the edge of the pond or the river, it is

accessible to a snowmobile. Perhaps there is a foot a snow, or a couple of feet

of snow, but after you go beyond five or six feet inside, there is usually a

mountain of snow in there, and you would never make it, anyway. Mr. Speaker, if,

at this present time, there is no problem with the boat houses - there is no

problem, Mr. Speaker -

I suppose if the Minister wanted, Mr. Speaker, he could go up

to nearly every cabin owner tomorrow. Most cabin owners have small boat houses

or small wharves adjacent to their land, projecting out on the river or on the

pond, they do not have the right to do it, but rules and regulations are meant

to be guidelines. They can be bent, not broken but bent, and in many instances

no one minds, because the majority of people could not care less if people go

out on their wharf or if people drive up on a skidoo. Most Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are friendly people and really enjoy visits, but we have a few who

differ, and I suppose those few are found everywhere, all over the world.

But if one person in Newfoundland or Labrador is impeded from

proceeding up the side of any lake, the side of any river - it was done on the

Miramichi, it is done in New Brunswick, it all started from scratch; now, up

there you cannot find a place to fish. If you want to go fishing, well you can

twiddle your thumbs, there is no such thing. Mr. Speaker, I said before and I

will state it again, I have trouted and fished on nearly all the ponds in nearly

all parts of Newfoundland and some parts of Labrador, and I hope that I will

never see the day that I will come up the side of some lake or some river and

see a chain link fence.

I will then have to go back and cut a hole, and I am telling

you with my size I would need quite a hole, but the hole would be cut in that

fence because I do not think that anyone has the God given right to stop another

person in this way.

The Premier can say what he likes, because he knows what I am

saying is the truth; we should not take any liberties away from what we have

today. Enough has been taken from us. Some of our rights have already been

stepped on, because every year we have more regulations coming in. We have

regulations coming in on this, regulations coming in on that. I even fear that

some time or other soon, and I suppose the Minister of Fisheries can associate

himself with this, you are going to need a permit to catch a few trout - I can

see it coming. And you know something else, you may think this is hypothetical

and foolish, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Hold on one second now. Do you know that

there have been proposals made to the Department of Fisheries saying that you

should not be allowed to go out and jig a fish?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Go out and jig a fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, never.

MR. PARSONS: There is; there is.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will never (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: You will never see it? Yes, you will see it,

because some person who does not understand what it is all about, never did it,

had no feeling for it, will do the same thing as the Premier is doing; pushing

this piece of legislation, this little paragraph of a piece of legislation down

the people's throats.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible.)

MR. PARSONS: Look, the hon. Member for St. John's South

did as much trouting as I did, perhaps more. I mean you have seen it. I told a

story the other day when I was out at Holiday Inn: this young man said he was

way up country with three friends; they had two canoes and they came down

through the waterways and finally reached the lake after being gone four days.

They saw a cabin on the other side of the lake and one of the boys said: look,

there's a cabin; let's go over and have a rest and perhaps get a cup of tea or a

beer. But anyway, when they headed for the cabin, two speed boats came out and

cut up and down on each side of them and they ran for the side of the lake. He

said it was a miracle they were not drowned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What has this Bill to do with that?

MR. PARSONS: Because that is the person who is going to

impede the other person like you and me. That is the person who wants privacy.

That is the person, who no matter what went on, was not going to allow that

person to come over near his cabin. That is the person we are afraid of. That is

all that Bill does, give that person the right, if he has enough clout, if he

has enough money, to buy his way into it. Right now he cannot do it. All he can

get on that is a lease, and there is thirty-three feet of reservation. The only

people who can protrude, can go out on that reservation, are perhaps town

councils, power utility companies, Department of Highways, aquaculture.

No one finds any problem with that and even that should be

screened because there are areas of abuse in that as well. A person will say he

wants to start aquaculture. That fails and he now has a private portion of a

pond for himself, which no one has the right to take back, because it was leased

for a certain number of years. It is forgotten about, and there it goes. That is

the way it all starts. I think there are enough people with commonsense in this

House on both sides who will say, no, they will have another look at it. They

will say: perhaps what they are saying has some credence, perhaps what they are

saying has some truth to it, even if there is a little iota of truth in what

they are saying, there is a loophole there that did not exist in the old

legislation. All we are asking the hon. House to do is take another look at it.

You have already defeated the six month hoist, which from my perspective was a

good one, to give some time to think it over, because it has to be remembered,

you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps it will die.

MR. PARSONS: Well, I want to remind the hon. Minister

that the other two died, the other two Bills, 53 and 25 died, and this one

could, too. Now, we are debating it and there are some people on the other side,

I am positive, who feel the same way as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't they say it?

MR. PARSONS: Because for obvious reasons they tow the

line. The hon. House Leader is from Gander and I am sure as a boy he often

travelled around the lakes and ponds in Central Newfoundland. He is a biologist

by profession and I am sure that he has seen, not only in his educational

aspects of life, but in his own personal adventures, that the waterways around

were never restricted to him in any way, shape or form. So, if they were not

restricted to him, his ancestors, or anyone else, why change it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do we need a grant?

MR. PARSONS: You do not need it. The Minister is saying

the grant is going to cure all ills. This is it, Mr. Speaker, the grant is it.

He tells us time and time again. I told the Minister the other day that if we

keep on getting rules and regulations we will be no better off than our

ancestors were when they came over here to get away from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will have to go trouting in our

(inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I wonder if the poor old Minister of Finance

ever had a trouting pole in his hand?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know where he is from?

MR. PARSONS: I know where he is from, indeed I do know

where he is from. He never spent any time fishing. He does not know what it is.

One of my colleagues said he knows all about a bamboo. Well, a bamboo is not

such a bad pole.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a good pole.

MR. PARSONS: It is a good pole and if you really want to

flick in a few good ones a bamboo pole is the answer to it.

MR. BAKER: You flick them too far back in the woods.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Government House Leader says you

flick them too far back in the woods. I do not know if the Government House

Leader ever went back in the woods and picked up the ones he flicked there. I do

not know if the Government House Leader ever went fishing.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of poor people out there

who have had many restrictions placed on them over the last number of

years, especially since 1949 when we became part of Canada.

It is frightening to me and frightening to a lot of people that those little

sentences, those little stipulations, are placed in acts. Because remember, we

are a group of men and women here who are legislators, who bring in the laws

that govern the other 567,763. We are the people who make the laws that regulate

their activities. All we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we have enough

regulations. We do not need anymore, we do not need any stipulations, we do not

need any changes, and we do not need to fix anything that is not broken.

We want to stay with the status quo. Someone said: you want

to stay with the status quo, you want to stay with what you are living with now.

I said: well, you know, I have no fault with it. I have no fault with some

aspects of our livelihood as in today's world. I have no problem with that. Some

of the things our mothers and fathers had, I wish we were back to now, but not

all of them, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you give up water and sewer.

MR. PARSONS: Water and sewer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you give that up?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is only a modern innovation.

MR. PARSONS: That is right.

DR. KITCHEN: What do you want a car for? Why don't you go

out, get a horse, and shovel manure?

MR. PARSONS: Well let me say this to you, Mr. Minister, I

still do some of that, I still shovel some manure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you use a plough?

MR. PARSONS: I still shovel some manure, and I still have

the opportunity to drive a horse every now and then. I find no fault with that

either. You see, I told you in the first instance, and I told the hon. the

Minister of Finance, that I am not among the elite. A shovel of manure doesn't

mean anything to me.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What part of the horse was he looking at?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, what part of the horse were you looking

at anyway? I doubt if the hon. Minister would know one end of a horse from the

other. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Oh, the Minister of Health! His speech the

other day was something else. He is leaving now, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot do it

behind the Minister's back. Some of his statements, the emotion itself - and I

said the other day, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health was speaking, I

almost had motion sickness on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that my colleague from Kilbride

brought up the other day was how the Minister keeps reiterating that this is

law. Mr. Speaker, I was the mayor of a small town for ten years, and I saw many

people question authority. You would almost think that it wasn't questionable

but, Mr. Speaker, you go to a court of law and everything is in question. Mr.

Speaker, if some person were to defy that Act, it would take years to straighten

out that position, especially in law. The Minister knows that is factual,

because grants, leases, and so on are open for scrutiny by the legal profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is the fishing in Flatrock.

MR. PARSONS: The fishing in Flatrock is fine, as long as

we do not bar off the rivers and the lakes that we have access to at this moment

to catch a few freshwater fish. Now, the saltwater fish, well the season down

there is pretty well over now.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you find your breakwater?

MR. PARSONS: The breakwater is lovely. Thank God for the

feds! We will have to thank the Federal Government. You know that beautiful

grotto is down there and every night the people go up to the grotto and they

pray for the Prime Minister and for John Crosbie and Ross Reid and the people

who made that breakwater possible. I must say that the Province had very little

to do with it. I sought their assistance on many, many occasions, over twenty

years, but to no avail, Mr. Speaker. They turned me down flat, said it was not

necessary, it was too much of an expenditure, it would not last there, it would

not stay there, or whatever. But, Mr. Speaker, it is there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. PARSONS: The breakwater. We are talking about the

breakwater down in Flatrock now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the breakwater.

MR. PARSONS: I didn't bring it up, Mr. Speaker, it was

the hon. the Minister of Fisheries who brought it up. I get so uptight when they

speak about waterways! I had to sort of explain to the hon. House how the

breakwater got to Flatrock, who put it in Flatrock, what this Province had to do

with it - nil! - but I should not be really overenthusiastic even in that aspect

because I may go to the Minister of Fisheries one of those days to look for a

small grant. The Minister of Fisheries comes down to the breakwater every now

and then, gets a few fish, buys a few fish. So perhaps I will not be hard or

harsh on him, at this place and time. I might be over to him one of those days

with a little job opportunity project or something. We cannot say that because

of the scarcity of fish down there, because there was lots of fish down there

this year, there has been lots of fish for the last number of years.

But the Minister agrees with me that it is a lovely facility,

and it should have been there years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: We have sort of strayed from the subject.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen as far as this Bill is

concerned is inevitable. There are people out there who will abuse a system no

matter what system it is, and will abuse laws. We cannot control people on

highways, we cannot control people in any walk of life. Neither will we control

some of the people as it pertains to this piece of legislation. We say over and

over from this side, there is nothing wrong with revamping, changing, "An Act To

Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands...." We knew it had to be

cleaned up. I think that our own Party was almost there, and it is argued by the

Minister that they were almost ready to bring in the same legislation that we

speak about now.

But I say to the Minister, they did not bring it in, that is

the point. Because there were people within Cabinet who did not like this

clause, who thought that it might impede or endanger the privileges of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is why that government had the ingenuity,

the foresight, not to bring in this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation

that is a step backward in time. I agree with the Minister of Finance when he

nods his head, it is a step backwards. I agree with him. I am sure that when we

rise to vote on this Bill that the Minister of Finance - and I do not know but

the Minister of Education, who is a good old buddy of mine - might say: yes, he

does have a point, and I will abstain, or I will not be in the Legislature, for

any reason. But I can see over there all the new people in the Government

caucus, with the exception of my hon. friend on the left, I can see all those

people. They are thinking about it.

The Member for St. John's South is not a bad sort of a

fellow, he gets up some times and goes on about foolish, idiotic stuff, but

really, he is a fair-minded fellow. I am telling you that he is living up the

shore now. He is not a St. John's man any more. He has gone south. If he gets up

in this House and votes for that Bill then I am going to spread the word on him

up the southern shore.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: The southern shore?

MR. PARSONS: Oh well, he is moving. I do not know if has

gone up there lock, stock and barrel yet, Mr. Speaker, but he is on his way up

the shore. That is an honourable district with a lot of honourable people, and a

lot of people up there love to go fishing, and certainly do not want to be

curtailed in any way by this Government or any other government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left but no

more than ten or fifteen minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That hon. young Minister, look, there he is,

a young man over there. Here he is, telling me to sit down. I am up here trying

to beat a bit of sense into his head, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is shocking. I will

certainly be voting against -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: I will certainly be voting against this Bill

22, but I do not want to do it, Mr. Speaker. So I beg hon. members opposite to

do the honourable thing, and get up and vote - not with the Premier, not with

the Minister of Finance, not with the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the

acting Minister of Environment, not with those people - vote with

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nearly 570,000 of us. Vote for what is right

and give Newfoundlanders -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That will never happen again, and I say to

the hon. the Member for St. John's South, in his case it certainly will never

happen again if he votes for this bill with 7(2) in there.

I ask the ministers and the members again to consider going

to the Government House Leader and saying to him, 'Take out 7(2) and everyone

will be happy.' It will be a great day for poor Newfoundlanders like ourselves,

and we won't be giving to the elite, something for which some people are

pressuring this Government, a number of the ministers and the Premier, to bring

in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for Newfoundland, a sad day for

us fellows who love the ponds, love the water ways, love to go out into open

spaces, love to go moose hunting, when someone will put a fence across and stop

our access to go wherever we want to go on this island. Our ancestors came over

here, Mr. Speaker, for the freedom they could not enjoy in Europe. So, now,

don't take it away from them. Vote against this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Moi is it? Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: A strawberry patch doll (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: A strawberry patch doll or a cabbage

patch doll is it?

MR. TOBIN: That is the potato patch over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this by leave?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't think this is by leave. I am

speaking to Bill 22. I believe I have the right to speak to it the same as other

hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, not the second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You spoke before.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I spoke before on an amendment we

had to the bill, and I might even be tempted to move an amendment to it again if

the minister will not back off a little bit on it - not a big lot, I am not

interested in changing the whole bill. Most of it, 99 per cent of it is a pretty

good bill. There are a couple of smaller parts, but only one major part that I

had trouble with, and I explained it to the minister before.

AN HON. MEMBER: What

section is it?

MR. R. AYLWARD:

Section 7, generally, all of 7 is the

part of the legislation that is most offensive, and would be most dangerous to

Newfoundlanders. But I was hoping that maybe the Premier, not necessarily as

Premier, but as a lawyer, or the Member for Humber West or the Member for

Bonavista South, the acting Minister of Justice, 'the Chair warmer', would speak

today and give us some idea of what could happen with this piece of legislation

once it goes to court.

Now the Member for St. John's South should be up to speak to

this because it is important. He was on parliamentary business the last time I

spoke. I am only up this time to refresh his memory on the great speech I made

last time, and I am pretty sure I had most over there in the back benches

convinced that I was right. I was not being political. I congratulated the

minister on the excellent presentation he made, and I am serious about that. He

did a good job of presenting what this bill stands for. He was well briefed and

he made a really good presentation. But I don't expect the minister to

understand the legal details of land surveying. I have the advantage of being a

land surveyor, having been trained in that field, but I don't have training in

the legal field - legal surveying, yes, but not in law generally - and that is

why I was hoping that maybe the Premier or the Member for Humber West or the

Acting Minister of Justice would have a few words on what I said last time. Or

maybe even the Minister of Justice from Duckworth Street might even have a few

words. The Duke of Duckworth, maybe he would have a few words on this.

But I think it is very important to note that while the

minister was making his presentation, he was suggesting that with the old act,

the minister could grant a Permit to Occupy. Now, he was getting mixed up on the

word 'grant'; he thought that because you could grant a Permit to Occupy, that

was the same as you can do now, to offer a grant on a piece of land.

If it were explained quickly to a person who was not familiar

with it, I can understand getting that mixed up; Being granted a Permit to

Occupy from the Government, many people would expect that to mean that they own

the land. It is not an unreasonable assumption to make, unless you happen to be

a lawyer or you are involved in real estate, or maybe even surveying, as I am.

There is a vast difference between Government granting a

Permit to Occupy, which is only a license, and granting a piece of land. Even

granting a piece of land, with conditions, does not guarantee that these

conditions can be enforced, once the deed goes to court.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happens (inaudible) for aquaculture

and he does something else?

MR. R. AYLWARD: If the guy gets a grant for aquaculture

and changes his mind? That is a good question. I am glad the Minister of Finance

asked that, because that is the exact example. I didn't have an example for

aquaculture, because I don't know that it happened. But in the early 1970s,

between 1972 and 1975, somewhere in that area, there was a major revision of

this Crown Lands Act. At that time it was decided to only lease Crown land to

people who had land. After a while, that was not satisfactory because most

Newfoundlanders really wanted to own their piece of land. A lease was not what

they wanted, they wanted to own the piece of land so they could have security, I

would imagine.

What happened was that in the agricultural industry, they

changed for a short time from leased agricultural land to agricultural land.

Now, the Minister of Finance asked that question but he probably wasn't serious

about the answer. In the 1970s, because Newfoundlanders liked to own their land

- agricultural land I am talking about, not aquaculture, as you said - they

changed the leased agricultural land to granted agricultural land, with

conditions. The person I was familiar with, the surveyor, as it happened to be,

of this agricultural piece of land that the family of this person wanted to

subdivide, split up into two groups, but the conditional grant said you could

not do that. Well, they went on for a couple of years in court and it was quite

an expensive battle. But the court ruling that came down gave more weight to

other things that probably I do not know of, as a surveyor. The surveyor to me

was saying this was the grant. It is the same to me, this is the measurement,

100 feet of land is a 100 feet of land.

Now, a judge might say it is a hundred feet of land but this

reads more or less and you might give him another ten feet. I do not know what

way a judge rules, but he has other considerations. And what happened on the

agricultural land when they went to court, was, the conditional grant said, this

land is to be kept for agriculture - you own it; the Minister of Finance owns

the land but it has to be kept for agriculture.

You passed away and your five sons had the land but they want

to split it up; however, it is said that the land could not be subdivided. When

the farmer died, he left some children to whom he passed on the land, but the

department, whoever gave out the grant, when these people wanted to subdivide it

and build houses and whatever else, something happened where one of them could

not build the house that he wanted to because the conditional grant said you

could not subdivide and all of that. But it was subdivided for years before this

happened; the Crown did not know it was subdivided. If I owned a grant, be it

conditional or not, for twenty-five acres and I subdivided it five times, I do

not have to go back to the Crown to tell them I subdivided it. If I get a lawyer

to straighten this out, if I sold it to you, and you went and got your lawyer,

your lawyer would look at this and say, 'This grant says you cannot subdivide

it,' but it could have been subdivided twenty years, by that time, between a

family. What happened when it finally went to court was the judge ruled that

this was a grant. I have been granted this piece of land here non-conditional, I

own it, I can do what I like with it, but the piece next to it had conditions on

it, but the judge gave more weight to the freehold title of the land rather than

the conditions, so this piece of agricultural land that was supposed to be

protected indefinitely for agriculture was subdivided and lost to agriculture.

That is what I am afraid will happen here if these pieces of land are granted.

Then the Crown lands went back to only leasing agricultural land, you do not get

a grant, you do not get a conditional grant. And farmers in this Province don't

like it. They argued with me every time I met with them. They still want to own

their piece of land. I do not disagree with that but what most Newfoundlanders

do not realize is that a ninety-nine or a fifty year lease is automatically

renewable as long as you continue with the conditions that are in the lease and

it is pretty well as good as a granted piece of land, as a freehold piece of

land. You can mortgage it, you can transfer it, and you can sell it. As long as

the conditions of the lease are upheld there should not be a problem. If the

conditions of the lease are upheld and your fifty years run out, and there is an

automatic renewal on it, you should be able to continue farming, or whatever

that piece of land said you could do with it.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am concerned about in this bill.

The bill has specific reasons as to why the Crown, or the Cabinet, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council can grant a piece of land. There are specific

reasons, but that, in itself, is a change, because today you cannot grant that

land. The Minister of the Crown, the Cabinet, the Government, cannot grant that

piece of land, as I understand it. If that is not so, I hope the minister will

stand and tell me it is isn't. Nobody can grant that piece of land today. There

is a reservation. If there is a piece of Crown land that is being alienated from

the Crown, that somebody has to go get a survey for, a surveyor has to reserve a

reservation and nobody can grant that reservation to anyone else. They can put

out a permit to occupy on it. I am pretty sure the minister, alone, can do that

if there is a valid reason, but I really can't think of a reason why you would

want to do it, even with a Permit to Occupy. If you have an aquaculture project

in the water just out past the foreshore, say you had a freshwater fish farm and

your buildings were back off the ten-meter grant and your fish farm was out in

the water, which you cannot own, anyway - I don't think in freshwater, I am not

sure if you can get a water lot for it or not. But if your fish are out there,

your buildings are back here on your grant, and there is a ten-meter piece of

land in between, why would you want it? Nobody can stop you from going over it.

The Crown owns it.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, and what is wrong with an easement

to do that - to give you an easement to do that? You don't have to give a grant

to do it is what I am saying. You can give a licence, you can give a permit to

occupy, or you can give an easement.

MR. FLIGHT: Or you can give a grant.

MR. R. AYLWARD: But when he sells it he takes the grant,

he takes the piece of land, the freehold title to that, and the works is gone.

If he moves out of there tomorrow and he has an easement over that and the

aquacultural farm is finished, if he had an easement there, that reservation is

still left, and his land behind can still be used for something else. If he has

buildings on it he can sell them but he does not have to sell the grant of

reservation.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It could very well, yes.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You won't because you won't know it has

happened.

MR. FLIGHT: Why not?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Crown will never know that grant has

been sold because it never comes back to Crown Lands again. That will go in the

Registry of Deeds, Mr. Speaker, and the Crown will never hear tell of that piece

of land again, unless, when a lawyer is doing some searches, they go back to the

Crown and ask about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Or Tom Hickman!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. I am not quite right, because if you

involve a lawyer to search a title twenty years down the road after you sold it

two or three times, because we do not always get lawyers to do our title

searches, you might have that problem. But it could be so far down the road by

that time that if it came up in a court case a judge might just have to rule:

Well, boy, this is gone so far, and it is not causing any problem. I don't know

what the judge will rule, that is the problem.

My problem is, we are giving the control from this

legislature to somebody else outside of our control. That is my main problem

with this, and there is no need of it. If there was a need of it, if somebody

could tell me a valid reason why this should happen, I could probably agree with

it. I am not an unreasonable person. I have some understanding of land tenure

and needs and uses for land. I am a surveyor, so I am trained in that. I have

surveyed all of these pieces for all kinds of uses for people. I have surveyed

land for expropriations, for buildings, for whatever you want to think of, and I

cannot think of a valid reason why we would have to give away that reservation.

The Crown would have to give it away.

The Crown still owns it. If you need it for public works -

for a road, for a sewer line or for a water line - sure, you still own it. They

can't stop you from putting that on it. You can tell the town council, which is

an arm of government: yes, go ahead and put your sewer outfall there. Well, not

in a freshwater pond you wouldn't.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The minister and the Government keep

saying Cabinet might never do that. I am sure this Cabinet would not. I would

trust them with my life. The whole lot of you, you are all the best kind in the

world, you would never do it. But you are giving someone the power to do it, and

you are giving someone the power again, after you do it, if you ever do it,

outside of this legislature, which is the judge or courthouse or whatever, to

make another decision, a final decision, on what will happen to that piece of

land. And there is no need of it.

Again, if there were a need I could agree. If you could

explain to me the need to do this probably you would convince me. If someone

from that side had stood up since the last time I spoke and given me the reason

why it is necessary to do this, probably I would not be here this time, and we

would have had this passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Where were you?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am not sure when it was done. I was

probably in Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I was in Cabinet. Now, what is the

point?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) that you were prepared to bring

it into the House and have it enacted.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did I bring that into this House?

MR. FLIGHT: No, but you intended -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did our government bring that into this

House?

MR. FLIGHT: It was on the Order Paper.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did we bring it into this House?

MR. FLIGHT: It was destined for the Order Paper.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Ask me! Ask me! Just answer that

question. Did we bring it into this House?

MR. FLIGHT: No, because there was an election.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, that is the point, we did not bring

it into the House!

MR. FLIGHT: But you intended to!

MR. R. AYLWARD: And I say another thing: Had we brought

it into the House at the time - and it could slip by, maybe it could have. There

might have been a hundred things gone through that I missed. I do not disagree.

But I say one thing, that if it had gone through at the time, the Opposition of

the day would not have questioned it. It would have gone, good-bye, that would

have been the end of it, because the Opposition would not have picked it up, and

maybe we would have missed it, I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Maybe we would have missed it. Except for

the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, I am not sure if we would have caught

it or not.

MR. MATTHEWS: Drove his foot right down to his throat.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

is the one who raised this issue. God bless him for doing it, I am glad he did.

If he had been on this side of the House, and I, a minister -and I understand

what he was talking about - if he understood what he was talking about, Mr.

Speaker, I think we would have accepted an amendment to it.

It is not a big deal, it is not a non-confidence vote in the

Government. It is a simple little thing to say, Yes, from now on we are going to

protect that ten metres. You have limited it to only ten metres now. That is a

change, too. Up until now it could be ten metres, fifteen metres, it could be

pretty well what the Director of Crown Lands wanted it to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It could not be zero, no, it had to be at

least ten. It is the old act - I have a copy of it there somewhere. It has at

least thirty-three feet, and then it went on from there. But most recent surveys

that I did on Crown lands, there was a fifteen-metre, a fifty foot reservation,

which is better again. You cannot say 100 feet, or you cannot say 300 feet,

except for Murrays Pond, and I really do not know - and how bad would it be if

all of our ponds and rivers were like this - how bad would we all feel? I know,

every one of us, no matter where we live in this Province, unless we were a

member of the private club or company or person who owned that pond, we would

feel pretty bad if we could not go there. I understand it when you go to Quebec.

If I drive across this Province next summer and I want to

stop and haul out a fishing pole and get out and have a flick, I can do it

anywhere - whatever road I go to, wherever I want to, whenever I want to, and I

may even be lucky enough to catch something. But if a person from Quebec comes

down here to visit, they have to buy a fishing licence I think, and then they

can do pretty well the same thing within a couple of hundred feet of a main

road, if they take a guide and all that, which is good, but I cannot go to

Quebec and do that. I cannot go to Ontario and do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not think so. No, I do not think so;

not in every pond, river and lake within that couple of hundred feet off major

highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, you have private lakes in Ontario. I

could do it in Alberta, maybe. I trouted in Alberta. I did not have a licence

though.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't get any.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not get any, no. It was the wrong

season, but in Alberta I did it. I do not know about the rest of them. In New

Brunswick I cannot do it. I do not know about Nova Scotia, but in New Brunswick

I cannot do it on every river. I know that because the Member for Port au Port

told us his experience on the Miramichi. I cannot just go up there and fish

where I like, when I like.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot walk in the dark up there.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He went and bought his licence alright,

but buying the licence was not the only thing he had to do. He had to buy a

licence and then get permission from the person who owned his

section of water

to fish there. I do not think that any of us in this House would like to see

that happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Member for Placentia. Ask the

Member for Placentia, boy. He will tell you the difference.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not think that any of us in this

House would like to see this happen, except one. There could be one person in

this House who would like to see this happen. There could very well be just one

person in this House who would like to see some private lakes, and who would

like to see some private sections of water; this person who did not want to be

bothered by the rest of us; this person who likes to bring in his own elite and

put them in Cabinet; this person who does not want anything to do with the

backbenchers, the ones that were elected by the people of Newfoundland. Well

they are not good enough for this person to put in Cabinet; they are not good

enough to be around him while he is salmon fishing. There could very well be one

person in this House who would like to see private rivers and private lakes and

private little spots of deep holes where there are great salmon. Maybe Devil's

Gulch up on the Eagle River might be a good spot for him to block off and save

for himself. There could very well be one. He is the only one I can think of.

That might be wrong too, I am not sure. It could be wrong, but I doubt it. I

doubt it. He certainly would not admit it. He would not admit it to his Cabinet,

because I am sure the Minister of Finance would not go along with this - never

-if he thought that is what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, that could be the reason. That is the only

reason I can see. I see no other logical reason. If that is the case, if the

Premier has some grandiose scheme of selling off pieces of our rivers to balance

his Budget, or pieces of our ponds to balance his deficit and try to keep the

Minister of Finance on track, Mr. Speaker, if that is his plan, that he is going

to pay off our past deficit by selling pieces of our great rivers and our great

ponds, I can understand that. It is quite possible. I could understand that, but

if he would say it I would see some logic in why this is happening. He will not

say it. Nobody will say it, so I can only assume that it is pretty farfetched,

and I admit it is pretty farfetched. I do not even think the Premier would do

that, but I have my doubts sometimes. So, what is the reason for it? As I said

before, if you need a public work in this foreshore; if you need to do something

between what he has owned, the land that you expropriated from someone else that

you could take anyway, and the high-water mark, well you own the land; you can

do it. You can build a road there; you can build a bridge there. You could

permit someone to use it for aquaculture. You can give a permit to occupy for

any use at all. You do not have to grant it to someone. You do not have to lose

control of it, and when you grant it, you will probably never see it again.

Crown Lands Registry will never see that, once the grant is put in their book

and written down there: I wash my hands of that piece of land, as the Minister

of Crown Lands. - and it is gone out to private industry or private ownership,

and then it is dealt with otherwise. The next time that will be registered with

any Crown group it will not be registered as Crown land, it will be registered

as private land in the registry of deeds if I sell it or someone buys it, or

whatever happens.

So the Crown cannot enforce it. They cannot enforce what is

going to happen with these grants which they could issue if they wanted to. They

cannot protect this piece of land above and beyond putting some restrictions in

a conditional grant that might or might not be ruled the same some years in the

future in a court, should we give up our control over that piece of land. So I

cannot see or think of any logical reason why we might have this reason.

There is one reason that might have come up, I suppose, under

very exceptional circumstances, somebody could have built a house on a grant,

misplaced it on their grant and got the corner of their house out over the

reservation, and if they needed a mortgage on it, that could cause a problem

because they would not get a mortgage on it unless they have clear title to the

works. But if somebody was going to build a house or a cabin or whatever you

would build and put it on the lot wrong, you would put probably a corner of it

over the lot, you certainly would not put it right out to the water, then

probably you could give a lease or a licence or something to that person the

same as you would do with a road right-of-way now if a person builds outside it.

You could give them a licence to use that piece of land as long as they need it

for that specific use, and as long as you do not need it. That would be very

reasonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: If I get flooded.

AN HON. MEMBER: If your property gets flooded.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is called riparian rights, there is

a problem, yes. If the bank erodes, you mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I only have twenty minutes left. If the

banks erode - there is one instance that I heard of, down on Water Street there

was a building, Campbell's I think it was, and the railway was behind them going

down Water Street, and every time the railway wanted to move the track they used

to fill in Waterford River and move it out, and move it out. Apparently what

used to happen was that Campbell's used to end up with a bigger back yard, and

the railway had to one day come back and buy all that land from them because

they needed it. I understand it was because of some riparian rights, or whatever

it was called. But they made several hundreds of thousands of dollars on work

that the railway did but had to buy back because part of their boundary was the

bank of the Waterford River, without reservation too on that one.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I have a problem with this Bill

again. If there is some reason why you have to give up your title to some part

of that reservation, why not do it by permit to occupy or lease? Why not say in

this that it can never be granted, not even conditionally granted to anyone or

any time? Why not say if it cannot be held by a permit to occupy, maybe we can

do it by a lease, under extremely unusual circumstance we could possibly lease

this land. I do not think that is unfair. I do not think that is unreasonable. I

still do not know the reason why we have to do it at all, but there could be,

giving someone the benefit of the doubt that there could be a reason why you

might want to alienate title of some part of that ten metre reservation, let's

do it by lease. Let's do it first by permit to occupy, let's write something in

here and say 99.9 times this will be done by permit to occupy, as can be done

today. This is what exists today. If there was some reason, if somebody has an

expensive house or somebody has something that they need mortgaged, and the

banks will not go along with title - give them a lease over that piece of land.

But do not give them a grant. I do not think it is necessary to give them a

grant for that piece of land.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Sure, banks give money on leases all the

time. Ninety-nine per cent of the land in St. John's is leased by the St. John's

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Whatever time. A renewable lease, if you

stick with the conditions, is as good as gold. But all of St. John's Housing

Corporation land, now Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation land, that

was given out around St. John's, is ninety-nine year lease or 999 year lease.

Most of it. Used to be.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not know, maybe not any more. I know

when I was surveying the Newfoundland Drive area in Virginia Park they were

leasing it at that time, and that was not too long ago. When they did all the

northeast area of St. John's, all of Harris Road and all that, that was all

leased. All the Churchill Park area in this - now it could be changed - they

probably gave freehold title since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you do all that surveying?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did most - I did a lot of it, yes. I

have been here a long time. I had hair when I started that stuff. I did not do

Churchill Park, that is the only one.

But, Mr. Speaker, all of that land was mortgaged, bought,

sold and transferred at the time there were leases on it, without problem. It

has been indicated to me that the leases might not exist today, and there is

probably a reason why they weren't. Why do you need them? I do not know why the

Newfoundland and Labrador - well, no, I do know why. Because in those leases

were stipulations, and maybe they were necessary years ago, of what types of

fences you could put on the land, what types of houses you could build on the

land. There were restrictions in that lease. I guess with the municipal bylaws

that we have in the City area now, or probably in the Province, you do not need

those leases any more. That could be a reason why they are changed. I am not

sure.

But I know there was a problem in - several people I know

after I surveyed them they could not put - they certainly could not put fences

out to the corner of the sidewalk. They still cannot do it, but one reason they

could not do it is because they had a lease on that land from St. John's

Housing. They could not put a certain height of fence up, that was in their

lease, and several other restrictions.

But leases are quite acceptable to financial and legal

institutions. They are used worldwide for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I will

finish it. I will just say to the Minister again, if he has a good reason why, I

will vote for this. If he can give me a good reason why, I will vote in favour

of this. If he cannot give Members of this House a good reason why, why not

bring in an amendment - ask your House Leader to bring in an amendment to say

that: let's use permits to occupy, and leases in the extreme, but very unusual,

but never grants. That would do for my vote, I do not know about everyone else

over here, but, Mr. Speaker, that would do for my vote. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I spoke

Friday morning on the six month hoist pertaining to this Bill for half an hour

or so. As far as I am concerned, everything that can be said either for or

against the Bill can be said and summed up in probably two or three minutes. So

I do not intend to take half an hour to be just plainly repetitious, and to say

the same things that I said on Friday morning. I do not think any Member has to

stand for an hour to try to get a point across if there is someone listening. If

there is no one listening you can stand here forever and a day, and you are

going to accomplish nothing more or nothing less.

But I would like to reiterate again my problem with this

Bill. It is with one particular

section of the Bill and that is 7 (2). The

Minister said before, and he said it again today, that there is no problem with

it. It was in the hands of the Minister before, he had the right to give a

permit to occupy. The Minister is exactly right. He did have the right to give a

permit to occupy. But under this particular piece of legislation, especially

Clause 7 (2), the Cabinet has the power to grant a lot more. And I do not mean

for that - I mean a grant versus a lease, versus a licence, or versus a permit

to occupy. Not just to give.

There are examples all around the Province today where our

land was given away, and it is causing people of the Province, and

municipalities in general, an awful lot of problems in the communities

themselves with regards to building regulations - where to build, where not to

build, and so on. Examples of that are: with Kruger, formerly Bowaters, the Reid

lots that were transferred some years ago; Abitibi-Price. We have them all

throughout the Province. I had an example just this past summer of an individual

in the Deer Lake area who wanted to put a tour boat on Deer Lake. He was at it

for almost eighteen months, and to this day he still cannot get a permit to tie

his boat up to the wharf there in Deer Lake. Reason? Because it is owned by

Kruger, or owned by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

They, right up the Humber River, own right to the river's

edge. There is a clause put in there years ago that now we cannot seem to get

around. If anybody has had any workings or dealings with Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper or Abitibi over the years, they know quite well what I am talking about.

They have someone sitting in an executive office in Montreal or New York looking

at a map that describes a poor old soul down here in Newfoundland who wants to

put in a cabin or a remote cottage somewhere in this Province. Because we have

such a large area of the Province covered by water, when they see such a piece

of water, a little strip on a map, that says my gosh, we cannot give that

individual the right to build a cabin there, he is on a lake. I mean, I actually

heard an official from Kruger say that.

Here we have such an enormous potential in this Province that

will never be realized, we will never be able to capitalize on it, unless there

are some changes made. I do not think there is any Member in this House today,

on either side of the House, who would disagree with that. Out in central

Newfoundland people are being stymied. There on the west coast of the Province,

the same thing, and in some other areas where they hold, more particularly, the

timber rights. But especially in areas where that can be - Birchy Lake, Sandy

Lake, Humber River, Deer Lake, right on through. You just cannot do what you

want to do.

But that is an example. What I am trying to do is draw an

analogy between what was, what is today, and what could be tomorrow when this

Section 7 (2) is passed. What could be tomorrow? I do not know. There is not a

Member in this House who knows exactly what is going to happen. But why put

something there that gives it the potential to happen? It cannot happen today.

This Government cannot grant today before this Act goes in place. Tomorrow, if

the Act is passed, it could happen. Why put it there, the possibility for it to

happen? Today it cannot, tomorrow it could. My basic underlying question

pertaining to this particular clause, and one that I cannot get answered, is why

does the Premier want this particular

section in that Act? Does it not make

sense?

Nobody can answer that question. The only answer I am getting

to it is: that we will add. If there is a problem with a certain

section of an

act, and you have to add to try to rectify it, it tells me that - every time you

add you are creating another problem. But I suspect, and I get the impression,

that whatever any Member says about this particular clause in the Bill, it is

not going to be heard. In the Legislature of this Province today, naturally the

Government has the majority, and they can at will, whether by the normal

channels and regulations of the House, or by bringing in rules and regulations

in the House - in this case I mean closure. Anything can go through if the

Government is convinced that it is right.

Mr. Speaker, I would just caution members before they vote on

this particular clause. I notice out and about the Province today - I will be

the first to admit that in the last few days the debate on this particular

subject is not, I suppose, garnering a lot of attention. The people I talked to

simply said: well we will throw up our hands. We have thrown up our hands. It is

just no good to say anything. But if you mind to go back to some of the comments

made over this particular Bill when the hearings were held around this Province,

it is no trouble to see, Mr. Speaker, that there was a lot of concern. Comments

made by individuals who appeared before the committees; comments made by

editorials, for instance in The Evening Telegram and so on, really told what

they thought to be the real reason, and the contents of this particular

section

of the Bill were at that time.

The Rod and Gun Club in Gander appeared before the committee

in Gander and stated their strong objections to this particular

section of the

Bill. Other individuals, just ordinary individuals from the Town of Gander and

surrounding areas did the same thing. The Newfoundland and Labrador Exploration

Limited went against the Bill. Comments from the Member for Bonavista South, the

Acting Minister of Justice, Mr. Gover, he is not in the House today. Don

Blackmore, an ordinary individual in that particular district, respectfully

submitted his, gave his reasons, and I will not quote them, Mr. Speaker. Another

one, Mr. Joe Collins from Ferryland, to Mr. Kelland, all kinds of reasons why.

The one from SPAWN, and I quote one of those sections, Mr. Speaker: It appears

that no one has come forward indicating that they have urged the Government to

make such changes to the act, including the Outfitters Association of

Newfoundland. It would seem that the old adage, if it is not broke why fix it,

should apply in this instance. They could not get anybody to tell them the

reason why.

This particular one strikes closer to home, Mr. Speaker, and

I quote one section. It was addressed to Mr. Gover, the MHA for Bonavista South.

In the second paragraph it says: Life is full of ironies. My love of fishing is

second only to my love of family and of God. Not believing in the policies of

the Progressive Conservative Party, I worked both long and hard in the last

provincial election on behalf of the Liberal Party, only now to be told by that

elected body that my fishing activities could be curtailed. What a beautiful but

sad example of irony I can now show my literature class and my children. That

was signed by Reg Carpenter from Bonavista South, Mr. Speaker, and I could read

paragraph after paragraph from submissions made right across this Province from

individuals such as this. That came from the heart -that particular statement in

that particular letter to that particular MHA - and if there is reason for

concern, why leave it there?

Another one to Mr. Gover from Rick Bouzan, the Executive

Director of the Newfoundland Wildlife Federation, and as much is said in the

P.S. at the bottom: Regardless of what additions you put there, the amendments

do not mean a thing. They are not acceptable to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, did you hear that? (Inaudible) Mr.

Minister. Boy, this is shocking.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish my

comments on this particular Bill, and in doing that I am going to quote certain

sections from one particular submission. I will just go through a few of those:

Currently the legislation authorizes Government to grant licence of ownership to

industries which, to exist at all, must have direct and controlled access to

waterfront property.

Such enterprises are clearly described within the existing

statutes, and for the current amendments to have been suggested at all we must

suppose that non-conforming applications are either extant or expected - now

that to me leaves a lot of reason for concern - in application reviews and with

eliminating the requirement wherever possible of creating new ad hoc legislation

there is however one most important caveat. Such desires and the stipulations

they give rise to must not unintentionally enable a wider spectrum of activities

to proceed simply because where before a detailed process would have been

mobilized, now only discretion is exercised.

One of the most important questions we must ask is whether

there is a greater likelihood of error with the old system or with the new. I

believe there is more security in the old legislation. In the past industries of

only specified types were even up for consideration. All of us recognize that

most change occurs slowly. It is undoubtedly true that impeded access to rivers

and lakes will not overnight be affected. Furthermore, it may never be the case

that industries will be so numerous as to occupy large portions of our

waterfronts. Nevertheless, vigilance towards even the possibility of such a

scenario must be maintained. (A few questions, Mr. Speaker.) Therefore, even if

the fears expressed here are exaggerated they must be respectively acknowledged.

Indeed, if opponents of the Bill have over-reacted, what is the loss to our

Province if Government accedes to their request? (And that question, Mr.

Speaker, I ask again this evening.)

What do we have to lose by acceding to their request? Again I

ask in which legislation, the old or the new, is there greater possibility for

error leading to reduced access? Is it really necessary to change this

legislation, and if so, why at this time? Are there a great many requests that

must be suddenly dealt with, which are not covered by the existing legislation?

Why is it not possible and indeed preferable to develop specific legislation for

such applications?

Although this is probably a more cumbersome route, if so many

people appear to want it and are willing to accept that slower processing times

will result, why should this route not be chosen? (Very legitimate questions.)

Expediency in the absence of necessity, particularly when it runs in opposition

to public sentiment, must be questioned. That one alone should make hon. Members

listen. Of course, those awaiting decisions on such requests will demand quick

responses but the basis of our decision must be the majority interest when it

espouses sound principles.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from some of the comments made by

individuals opposite, and especially I suppose coming from the Premier and the

Minister responsible, that this particular piece of legislation will probably

pass the House this week. But I will just finish on one particular comment made

by one particular person to that Committee.

He says: finally, I sincerely believe that if the now amended

legislation is approved we will see the day when some of our worst fears are

realized. It will not be tomorrow, and it may not be intentional, but all manner

of undertakings with any interest in controlling access to our waterways will

ride it as its vehicle. It should be clearly understood by all that existing as

well as future developments would view such an opportunity as too good to pass

up. If we are to err let it be on the side of caution. If we are to revise

legislation let it be in our long time best interests.

Mr. Speaker, that was a gentleman who gave, as far as I am

concerned, the best submission to the proposed new Bill. Some of the words

there, 'maybe not intentionally,' and I say this to the Minister this evening,

'maybe not intentionally,' but why should we put something there that will

probably create that problem?

The Minister knows quite well that he could not give a grant,

a lease or licence before. If this Bill is passed, he, in conjunction with the

Cabinet, can give a grant or lease or license; there is nothing to stop it and,

my question is, why put it there? Why create that possibility? If any company in

this Province needs it, as was stated by Mr. Power in his submission, just

because it is five years the bank would not go along with it - they have to go

along with the farmers of this Province. They are issued leases, fifteen and

fifty year leases and expect to keep it and work it and go to the banks and try

to get the banks to accept it as collateral and say to the banks: listen, I have

a fifteen year lease, and the bank will probably look at them and laugh; they

are into big business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give them a fifty year lease (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Give them a fifty year lease. What is the

difference? If we are going to change it when it comes to ownership, most of

those people after this is passed could conceivably have a grant to that

particular piece of land, they could, the same way with a cottage lot today, the

same way with a commercial lot and the same way with a residential lot. There is

a difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: There should not be, but that is in the

leases now. In every agricultural lease around this Province there is not one

person who owns an agricultural lease, whether it is a fifteen year lease or a

fifty year lease, has access or has the right of ownership to that particular

piece of land around any river or pond or lake or stream; not even a little

stream, not even a trickle, a tributary does he have right to it. You can walk

up any piece of land in this Province and as far as I am concerned that should

remain as it is.

I would challenge members opposite, the backbenchers to get

involved, question it and ask their constituents what kind of concerns they have

with it. They will not, and I know why they will not; because when the Premier

says he wants it, he gets it, nobody is going to question it and if they do

question it and get some feedback on it, they are not going to bring it to this

floor and that is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of

having some final words on this particular Bill and as far as I am concerned, I

hope that I am not around when something happens to the rivers and lakes and

streams of this Province, because I am not only thinking about myself, Mr.

Speaker, I am thinking about my children and their children, and I hope the

members opposite will take that into consideration, and even if it is passed,

for God's sake, somewhere along the road, do not give anybody a grant to any

particular reserve around any lake, river or pond in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, if he speaks now he closes the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to start of the

debate by saying that nobody is as blind as he who will not see, but I am not

going to close this debate in that spirit. I want to say that when I introduced

the legislation in the first instance I said that I expected a spirited debate.

Well, we have had a spirited debate and I want to thank the Opposition for their

civility in that debate. Obviously, the Members of the Opposition who spoke are

genuinely concerned about making sure that people's rights to unrestricted

access be protected and assured, and, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will

guarantee that.

After this legislation is enacted, it will probably be

impossible for anyone to ever get a lease, licence, permit to occupy or a grant

to any portion of the reservation around lakes, ponds, streams and rivers. The

hon. members are mostly concerned about the word 'grant', but do not forget that

Cabinet, the Lieutenant- Governor in Council, in considering an application will

probably opt to issue a lease or a licence, and will probably never opt to issue

a grant anyway. Remember, they can only consider a lease, a licence, or a grant

for the structures or the proposals that are identified in the legislation. You

would have to change the legislation in order to give an outfitter the right, or

an individual the right. Only the structures and the undertakings that are

identified in the legislation can be considered by Cabinet anyway. Mr. Speaker,

I suppose in the event that a grant was issued, and in the event that the person

who had the grant chose to use it for a different reason than they originally

applied, we could expropriate. In the final analysis we could take it back.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You will never know.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, we will know the minute somebody

complains that their right to access has been barred.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It would be too late. It would be twenty

years too late.

MR. FLIGHT: Then we would know. The question, Mr.

Speaker, is why was it necessary to keep 7 (2), clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),

(f), in? It was to protect the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

forever from some Minister, or some Government, denying them their rights to

free access, or unrestricted access. It is necessary to make sure that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will always have unimpeded, unrestricted access

around ponds, lakes, and rivers, and that that right cannot be put at risk. It

cannot be jeopardized by a Minister or an official of a Minister like it is now,

Mr. Speaker, like it was this past thirty years.

I cannot resist this: The hon. Member for Kilbride stands up,

and the hon. Member for Grand Bank, and the hon. Member for Humber, in

particular, I cannot speak for all Members who spoke in this particular debate

but they were Members of the Cabinet who ratified this Bill. We did not change a

line, we did not change a comma, did not change a quotation mark, and it was

intended to be on the Order Paper in the Spring of 1989. That is why I sit here

and I cannot believe my ears when hon. Ministers, five of them who are sitting

there now, and one of them may very well have been the Minister, I can check and

see, but one of them may very well have been the Minister who ratified this

legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: In 1988, the Winter of 1988. It is really

unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FLIGHT: You are probably right.

I intend to close this debate now, Mr. Speaker, but I am

going to repeat someth